N2O "has conventionally been assumed to have minimal emissions in permafrost regions," the report said, citing research published in the 1990s.

But the new study's findings challenge that assumption.

A team of researchers, led by Harvard University scientists, used a small plane to measure greenhouse gas levels over 120 square miles of thawing permafrost in the North Slope of Alaska. They found that in just one month of 2013, emissions of nitrous oxide in the region reached what was previously believed to be the yearly total.

"This revelation could mean that the Arctic—and our global climate—are in more danger than we thought," explained a statement from Harvard

What is clear, though, is that "much smaller increases in nitrous oxide would entail the same kind of climate change that a large plume of CO2 would cause," Wilkerson said.

The team's findings align with other recent studies that have relied on chambers—or "covered, pie plate-sized containers planted into tundra"—or the extraction of cylindrical "cores" from the permafrost to measure greenhouses gases, according to Harvard's statement.

The new study, said Wilkerson, "makes those findings quite a bit more serious."

The findings also bolster experts' previous warnings that policymakers around the world aren't adequately considering the impacts of permafrost thaw in their plans—based on the goals of the Paris climate agreement—to cut down planet-heating emissions and prevent climate catastrophe.

The usual denier kook. When a clown does not identify and quantify the supposed "natural causes" besides CO2 and other anthropogenic green house gases accumulating in the atmosphere, then he has negative credibility. Every single claim about natural causes trotted out by deniers has been debunked into oblivion. It's not the Sun (we know hat the TSI is) and it's not the clouds (no trends exist in the measurements). Then we have the mystical "variability" where kooks try to palm off ENSO type atmosphere-ocean heat exchanges as if they are some sort of contradiction to the net accumulation of heat by the combined ocean-atmosphere system.

The only factors controlling the global ocean-atmosphere heat content are:

2) Radiative composition of the atmosphere which is dominated by greenhouse gases. Over 99% of the atmosphere (O2 + N2 + Argon) does not absorb IR radiation and thus does not maintain the temperature of the system. Water vapour is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. There are no runaway evapouration events on this planet. Water is more potent as an IR absorber compared to CO2 and if the mystical variability was a valid excuse, we would have self-bootstrapping of water vapour loading in the atmosphere. But it is just too cold in the upper troposphere and high latitudes for water to keep accumulating without condensation. The Earth had over 95% CO2 atmosphere and all the water in vapour form for millions of years after its formation. But there was net loss of heat in this system that eventually gave us oceans and CO2 sequestered into calcium carbonate rocks. At no subsequent time did we have water vapour driven warming events.

CO2 emissions from volcanoes are constrained and average about 600 million tons per year. Humans are emitting over 30 billion tons per year. But humans also emit N2O, PCFCs, SF6 and other greenhouse gases. Anybody looking for natural sources overshadowing human inputs is totally detached from a basic education and reality.

3) Solar flux, which is affected by orbital geometry to some extent.

We can constrain all three of these processes sufficiently to determine if warming is occurring and why. Internal heat exchanges between the ocean an the atmosphere do not warm the combined system, obviously. Nonlinear advective transport averages out in the global mean. In particular, there is no net movement of mass of atmospheric layers towards the ground or away from it (what goes up must come down). The denier talking point about some cold spell in their local neighbourhood is utterly irrelevant since as they freeze, somewhere else the permafrost is melting. The key word is global and that is all that matters since we are inside this global system.

There is no man made global warming. To become a climate scientist you have to toe the line otherwise you will not be hired or fired, their job is to push the notion on to the public, they do not engage in science. There is no such thing as carbon pollution, it is the same as pointing to a puddle and proclaiming the water there is pollution or the O2 is causing pollution. CO2 makes up just 0.0413% of the atmosphere where as water vapour generally comprises between 1%-4% and is a more potent green house gas than CO2. How can CO2 be the major cause of global warming when water vapour is on average 100 times more prevalent and a more potent green house gas?

Pull your heads from out of your arse, the debate is over and man made global warming is a complete hoax and fraud.

The George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank that has cast doubt on the science behind global warming for years, closed its doors in September.

The institute, which had a twin focus on defense and climate change denial and had been funded by a number of fossil fuel interests, including the ExxonMobil Foundation, morphed into a nonprofit called the CO2 Coalition in August.

The CO2 Coalition is headed by William Happer and William O'Keefe, CEO and former chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group.

Nuff said..........

How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.

The George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank that has cast doubt on the science behind global warming for years, closed its doors in September.

The institute, which had a twin focus on defense and climate change denial and had been funded by a number of fossil fuel interests, including the ExxonMobil Foundation, morphed into a nonprofit called the CO2 Coalition in August.

The CO2 Coalition is headed by William Happer and William O'Keefe, CEO and former chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group.

Nuff said..........

Well at least they had the decency to rename their organization. George C. Marshall was a very intelligent man so it is highly questionable that he would be a climate change denialist were he to still be alive today.

Thing I am most concerned about is declining habitat for wildlife, rapid decline of insects, over fishing. Those are the most important issues, things like plastics entering the oceans are bad too but over time they will degrade away and become pristine again, but if we lose our forests we'll lose all the unique plants and creatures in them and we'll never be able to get them back, I would prefer mankind to cease to exist before that completely ever happens.

I understand people wanting to help the environment by moving to green energy thinking they are helping the environment and even if that is possible, it won't do anything for the environment, people are focusing on moving to green energy that it will somehow allow economies to keep growing sustainably, this will not prevent the continual decline and eventual extinction of flora and fauna. The climate change agenda is pushed by government and media world wide with the goal of taxing western nations and allowing the third world to pollute to excess. The rapidly expanding third world developing populations and economies are responsible for the current environmental destruction today and for the foreseeable future.

40 million years ago the Earth was full of forests, there was life very similar to today, mammals were doing fine and men were monkey's then and the CO2 levels were well over 1000 parts per million in the atmosphere. The carbon cycle diagram they show as a closed looped system is not correct, throughout the cycle a percentage of carbon continually is trapped underground and if that process continues plants will eventually stagnate and die off. The only positive thing humans have done for the environment is the burning of fossil fuels and releasing the carbon gases that have become trapped under the Earth.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true - by the wise as false - and by the rulers as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca

lp, there is a special thread for comments claiming things like 'CC is a hoax.' Please restrict such comments to that thread, so that the adults in the room can carry on with an intelligent conversation. Thanks.

It doesn’t much matter if he BELIEVE in AWG. If we did the things necessary to address his concerns then we would also address global warming. And he has a huge point the alternatives without energy reduction is just a different way of trying to maintain the status quo.

There are vast areas where your concerns overlap and you could easily joint hands in action.

Newfie wrote:It doesn’t much matter if he BELIEVE in AWG. If we did the things necessary to address his concerns then we would also address global warming. And he has a huge point the alternatives without energy reduction is just a different way of trying to maintain the status quo.

There are vast areas where your concerns overlap and you could easily joint hands in action.

Rampant contamination/waste of and into the Environment and overpopulation are problems in themselves. It is not just CC. Alleviation requires both a reduction in population and consumption and a halt to Earth damaging technologies.

Newfie wrote:It doesn’t much matter if he BELIEVE in AWG. If we did the things necessary to address his concerns then we would also address global warming. And he has a huge point the alternatives without energy reduction is just a different way of trying to maintain the status quo.

There are vast areas where your concerns overlap and you could easily joint hands in action.

Rampant contamination/waste of and into the Environment and overpopulation are problems in themselves. It is not just CC. Alleviation requires both a reduction in population and consumption and a halt to Earth damaging technologies.

Yes there are many forms of pollution caused by humans. This medium, the internet, is one of them.

Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Apeblog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/website: http://www.mounttotumas.com

If atmospheric CO2 levels exceed 1,200 parts per million (ppm), it could push the Earth’s climate over a “tipping point”, finds a new study. This would see clouds that shade large part of the oceans start to break up. ... They found a striking result: in their simulations, stratocumulus cloud decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200ppm. When these clouds break up they no longer shade the surface, triggering global warming of 8C – and as much as 10C in subtropical regions. This is in addition to the 5C or so of global warming above pre-industrial levels associated with 1,200ppm CO2. ... The authors find that once the stratocumulus decks have broken up, they only re-form once CO2 concentrations drop substantially, to below 300ppm. ... Despite a lot of public attention on tipping points, scientists have found limited evidence of them in climate models, at least over time-frames relevant to humans. The finding in this paper is important, say scientists, because it represents one of the first firm climate tipping points to come out of modeling exercises.

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 by Peabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition. [8]

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email. [114]

As part of a 2018 case where he provided supporting testimony for the side of fossil fuel companies against cities suing for damages related to climate change, Happer was required to disclose any funding he had received in the past. In these disclosures, Happer estimated the amount he received for the 2015 Minnesota testimony as “$10,000 to $15,000, though he does not recall the precise number.” [100], [101]

Happer also noted he had received $1,000 for a speech on climate change at the Heritage Foundation in 2017. [101]

EXTREME PREDICTION LEADERBOARD "this is peak now. Wanna bet? The Real Pain starts . . . now." (11/21/18)" --pstarr"$0/barrel soon as per etp." (12/30/18)" --pstarrATTN: SHORT LOST A BET AND WON'T EVEN ADMIT HE MADE ONE. HE SHOULD NOT BE WELCOME HERE!!!

No Greenpeace were setting him up, they posed as a power company wanting a report on CO2 and global warming. He said he would write a report for them but would not accept money from them, instead they could write a cheque to the co2 Coalition. He was just going to write what he believes to be true. He never accepted money like this and this offer was a fake fraud by Greenpeace and they used their fake fraud to claim he is accepting money from the fossil fuel industries. Greenpeace has been harassing him over their own fake manufactured claims

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tULDE_gYmucClimate denier confronted about funding from fossil fuel Peabody Energy moments before Ted Cruz's 'Data or Dogma' hearing on climate change. Greenpeace Researcher, Jesse Coleman, asks if Professor Happer has been paid by the fossil fuel industry for his testimony at the hearing. Happer denies and at one point replies, "You son of a bitch, I haven't taken a dime."

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true - by the wise as false - and by the rulers as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca

you do realize that consultants don't work for free, don't you? Do you think that various climate change cheerleaders like Mann don't charge for appearances? Do we need to remind you of all the money that these guys have taken from the government and other funds in order to support their research and lifestyle? Pot calling the kettle black I''m afraid.